Chris Christie Has Sold His Soul

I can't say I've ever liked Gov. Mike Huckabee. If I had any respect for him, it was tossed away when he and Rick Santorum went to Trump's rally during the primetime GOP debate. Mike & Rick, already on the return road to irrelevance, turned themselves into Trump's bumbling henchmen.

Chris Christie was something different. He is still the governor of New Jersey. He was very influential of the Republican Governors Association in 2014 and helped get a few Republican governors get elected. Now he has thrown his career away, and for what? I think Commentary's Noah Rothman said it best:

"Standing beside Donald Trump and endorsing the most unfit man to seek the presidency in my lifetime for the highest office in the land, Christie’s base careerism and disregard for the nation were exposed. Gone was the prosecutor who had ruthlessly fought corruption in New Jersey. In his place was a man defending Trump’s handling of the scam operation Trump University, which pitilessly bilked thousands out of their savings. Gone was the man who had scolded conservatives for indulging to bigotry by presuming an American Muslim jurist had to be an advocate for Sharia Law. Instead, there stood a figure linking arms with a demagogue who had proposed banning any Muslim entry into the United States – a proposal Christie had called “ridiculous” – and who dubiously cites the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 as constitutional precedent. Gone was the “straight talker” who “tells it like it is.” In his place is a man endorsing a serial compulsive liar who seems constitutionally incapable of honesty about himself, his record, or his beliefs, and who tells outrageous and slanderous lies about the heroes of his country and of his party. Gone was the conservative reformer who promised the necessary overhaul of the country’s entitlement programs. Instead, the diminutive figure debasing himself in the shadow of a reality television star now defends the unsustainable status quo in perpetuity and with no regard for fiscal realities. 

"For another few fleeting moments in the intoxicating light of the cable news cameras, Chris Christie has sacrificed every principle for which he once stood. Christie will spend the remainder of the campaign season aggressively compromising his integrity and shouting down anyone who refuses to abide the intolerable stench of hypocrisy that now accompanies his presence. This is a man who pounded the table when the facts were with him. Imagine the spectacle we will be forced to witness now that they’re not."

Where I Stand on the Current GOP Candidates

Going by reverse polling average.

11. RICK SANTORUM - An absolute joke. If he comes in the top five in Iowa, I automatically vote for the national GOP to kick Iowa further down the schedule.

10. MIKE HUCKABEE - An absolute joke. If he comes in the top five in Iowa, I automatically vote for the national GOP to kick Iowa further down the schedule. Period.

9. CARLY FIORINA - If you've never held political office, then you really need to have a good bio, and unfortunately her bio is too easy to dismantle, since it mostly hinges on Hewlett-Packard. She'll be a good regular talking-head on cable news.

8. RAND PAUL - It's always good to have some libertarianism in there somewhere, but it's time for him to focus on keeping his Senate seat instead.

7. JOHN KASICH - I like Kasich. I think he's been a good Republican for decades. I don't agree with everything he's done, but he has the best track record and the most experience. I could support him and not hold my nose doing so. He's just not my top guy.

6. CHRIS CHRISTIE - If it came down to Trump, Cruz, and Christie, I'd head the Utah Chapter of Christie 2016, if it hasn't already been organized. I don't get why he's not taking Trump and Cruz head-on more.

5. BEN CARSON - His campaign is like a slowly deflating balloon. It's just clear to me he's a very smart man but shouldn't be president. Nothing wrong with that. I'm a smart guy. I should not be president.

4. JEB BUSH - I used to like Bush. I used to think he'd be a good president. I used to think if he had any other last name, he'd be a good candidate for the Republicans to put forth. But I despise what he and his Super-PAC are doing. They are spending millions and millions and millions of dollars running negative ads against... Christie. And against Kasich. And more than anyone else, against his old pal Rubio.

Why are they trying to destroy Rubio, and now turning their attention to Christie and Kasich? Months ago there was a story how Mike Murphy, head of the Jeb super-PAC Right2Rise, came up with a strategy. Destroy every candidate other than Trump, to force it to a two-man race between Trump and Bush. We're seeing now that the story is true.

New reports show that Marco Rubio has had more attack ads run against him in Iowa than any other candidate. Why is the guy in third place in Iowa, third place nationally, taking all of the hits? Because of Jeb(!). The vast majority of money spent on ads in Iowa is from Jeb(!). And since he's sliding further and further toward the edge of the stage, he somehow thinks Rubio is the one he needs to eliminate the most. Has it helped Jeb at all? Three months the RCP average for him in Iowa was 6.3% Now? it's 4.5%. Three months ago Rubio was 9.3% Now? he's at 11.4%. And he and Carson and Cruz and Trump all remain above Jeb.

Jeb had the money to take out the #1 guy. If he really wanted the job, he should have used all that money on Trump. But he didn't. He backed down in debates against him, and his attack dogs are going after other guys not in first place. Now he needs to realize he is not the candidate for the Republican Party in 2016 and shift the money elsewhere for the good of the country.

3. MARCO RUBIO - He's been my top guy. I haven't liked his increased emphasis on fear, i.e. expand the powers of the NSA and doubling down on the Patriot Act. I like that he's come out in favor of Congressional term limits, and I like most elements of his tax plan. I think he'd be the perfect contrast to Hillary Clinton. She's about the past; he's about the future.

2. TED CRUZ - There's a reason he's the only senator running for president who has yet to be endorsed by another senator. Just about everyone who's worked with him does not like him. I think that matters. He rubs so many people wrong that even his alleged allies, fellow Republicans, are not going to go along with anything he does that they don't like. Over the decades, Senators and Representatives of the party in power in the White House have signed on to things they might not like, but they wnt to support their party, support their president. Cruz would inspire no such loyalty from Republicans, and forget any Democrat compromising with him. I think his televangelist style just comes across as too phony. I would like Cruz to be likeable, but he's not.

1. DONALD TRUMP - The last time I took the ISideWith quiz, the only Republican candidate I agreed with less than Trump was Santorum. Donald Trump is an entertaining guy, he's an off-the-cuff guy, he's a confident strongman. But he can change his mind on a whim. In fact I was watching Jessica Jones on Netflix, and Kilgrave (David Tennant) had this line that instantly jumped out to me as Trump's philosophy. "I'm a man of my word, unless I change my mind." Trump likes to win. If he wins, once he won, what would he really do? No one knows. And with all of his disparaging remarks against Mexicans, women, take your pick, he'd destroy the Republican party.

So this would be my voting preference:

1. Rubio
2. Kasich
3. Brokered convention for Romney
4. Paul
5. Fiorina
6. Christie
7. Carson
8. 3rd party
9. Oh, Bloomberg's running? 4th party.
10. Bush
11. Trump/Cruz/Clinton/Sanders/O'Malley/Huckabee/Santorum

How would the TSA handle Donald Trump's "Ban all Muslims" policy?

TSA: State your name.
Terrorist: My name is Ach...drew Jones.
TSA: Achdrew Jones?
Terrorist: Yes.
TSA: Religion?
Terrorist: Mus...thodist. Methodist.
TSA: You're Methodist?
Terrorist: Yes.
TSA: Thought you were going to say Muslim.
Terrorist: No, no. Methodist.
TSA: You can board. Next! State your name.
Dave: Dave Chappelle.
TSA: Religion?
Dave: Muslim.
TSA: GET HIM!! SWARM, SWARM!!!

Politically Speaking - 11/2/15

Some random thoughts on the current state of politics.

- It's been pretty amazing and yet completely predictable how Hillary Clinton has played the "sexism" card against Bernie Sanders. Bernie's been saying people shout for years, but Hillary somehow spun that into a craven dog-whistle for sexism. It was pathetic, but it worked. Now anything Bernie or his campaign says about Hillary that isn't fawning is somehow considered a sexist attack. RNC take note: learn how to handle crap like this, because it's nothing compared to what the Clinton Machine will throw at your eventual candidate.

- RNC chair Reince Preibus has decided "enough is enough" with the way the GOP debates have been going, compared to the substantive one Anderson Cooper moderated for the Democrats. He has removed NBC from their planned February debate, and this actually serves as a warning to the other networks. The candidates have since held their own meeting to figure out how they want to proceed. Reince has thus far been incompetent in how these debates have gone.

- Jeb Bush's claim that he hadn't seen the PowerPoint on attacking Marco Rubio until it was leaked was weak sauce. And he reboots his campaign with the instantly mockable #JebCanFixIt. He should drop out. Of course, so should Jim Gilmore, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal and Lindsey Graham.

Hillary Lied About Benghazi; So What?

We've known for years that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the motivations of the attack on Benghazi. They blamed a YouTube video for sparking outrage across Libya when they knew it was a terrorist attack. We can't let a terrorist attack seven weeks before the 2012 election muddy up the narrative, can we?

After 11 hours of Hillary Clinton testifying before the House Benghazi Committee, we have confirmation of what we've known. And when I say 11 hours, I really mean about 3 hours. The other 8 hours was taken up by Congressfolk pontificating, monologuing, whining, theorizing, making mini-speechs, crafting soundbites, and wasting time by complaining about all the time being wasted.

So was the hearing worth it?

"Thanks to Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony on Thursday, we now understand why the former secretary of state never wanted anyone to see her emails and why the State Department sat on documents. Turns out those emails and papers show that the Obama administration deliberately misled the nation about the deadly events in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012. 

Don’t forget how we came to this point. Mrs. Clinton complained in her testimony on Capitol Hill that past Congresses had never made the overseas deaths of U.S. officials a “partisan” issue. That’s because those past deaths had never inspired an administration to concoct a wild excuse for their occurrence, in an apparent attempt to avoid blame for a terror attack in a presidential re-election year." - Kimberly Strassel, The Wall Street Journal

And also:

"Even by today's standards of rabid partisanship, the breast-beating threat display from Democrats and members of the press alike to which voters were privy yesterday was something to behold.  The message has been clearly received: Republicans, back off from the nest in which Barack Obama’s anointed Democratic successor is incubating... 

Even if you were inclined to be extraordinarily charitable toward former Secretary Clinton and the administration in which she served, one must at least concede that new questions about what the administration knew and when it knew it have been opened up by this committee. It seems, however, that those with a passing attachment to intellectual honesty are in short supply inside the Beltway. 

The Benghazi Committee is owed a public debt if only because it has exposed the decay in Washington’s culture of wagon-circling. Pundits who forever lament America’s sense of alienation from the political class and their growing cynicism towards elected elites appear not to notice when they are exacerbating that condition. While news media and Democrats are praising Clinton’s performance, Americans are waking up to the notion that they might have been deliberately misled about the deaths of their fellow citizens in a terror attack and likely for petty political gain. There is something rotten here." - Noah Rothman, Commentary

On the Republican side, I thought Troy Gowdy and Martha Roby acquitted themselves best. Linda Sanchez and Adam Smith were probably the worst partisans on the Democratic side. When Adam Smith complained about not learning anything, Gowdy shot back with this: "I'll be happy to get a copy of my opening statement for the gentleman from Washington so he can refresh his recollection on all the things our committee found that your previous committee missed."

As for the Republicans in Congress as a whole, they are re-learning the lesson that the GOP from the 1990's learned: you cannot bring a Clinton down with a scandal.  Most of the media reports are praising her performance. And that's what politics is: performance. Democratic donors are thrilled to jump aboard the H-Train now.

Benghazi as an issue in 2016 is dead. Her email server is not. But really, for a year where the majority of Americans want an outsider, when they view DC as corrupt, is Hillary Clinton not the ultimate corrupt insider?  Between her and Trump, this is so far the most bizarro election ever.

Sean Hannity Loves Donald Trump

I did something I haven't done in a long time. I watched Hannity. I used to keeps tabs on him, and it's pretty obvious that he's there to give talking points. O'Reilly could go off on weird stuff at any time, Rush sometimes surprises me with his take on things, but Hannity is a reliable automoton with his spin on whatever the subject is.

So I watched Hannity last night because I heard he and Ann Coulter were singing Trump's praises. He started with guest Newt Gingrich, where they both talked about why Trump is a credible candidate. Hannity was spoonfeeding for the slower folks at home that Trump gave a speech earlier this week with a lot of specifics. Lots, I tell you.

Then Coulter came on and they started defended Donald Trump's position.

Charles CW Cooke was the other guest, and Hannity or Coulter would not let the guy finish a sentence without interrupting him and blasting him with Trump talking points. Hannity and Coulter tag-teamed him for the whole segment, and Coutler said stuff that was flat-out untrue. Cooke, if you read his writing, is a credible conservative. Coulter, if you read her writing, is a carnival sideshow. And Hannity sided with the sideshow. My favorite line from Cooke was that she was changing her position on issues based on whatever Donald Trump said last.

Remember when Donald Trump said he had a call with Roger Ailes and he said he felt like Fox News would be fair to him now? Well, Sean Hannity is the good little soldier wearing the "Trump 2016" button now.

Trump's Iowa Supports Slips; Still #1

Donald Trump showed weakneeses at the August 6 debate, but still leads polls.

The first post-debate Iowa poll is out, and it does show some movement, some hints for where voters are leaning in that state.

Gravis Poll in Iowa August 4

1. Trump - 31%
2. Walker - 15%
3. Bush - 10%
4. Jindal - 7%
5. Cruz - 6%
5. Huckabee - 6%
7. Carson - 5%
7. Kasich - 5%
9. Fiorina - 4%
10. Rubio - 3%

PPP Poll in Iowa August 10

1. Trump - 19%   (-12)
2. Carson - 12%   (+7)
2. Walker - 12%   (-3)
4. Bush - 11%      (+1)
5. Fiorina - 10%  (+6)
6. Cruz - 9%       (+3)
7. Huckabee - 6% (-)
7. Rubio - 6%      (+3)
9. Kasich - 3%     (-2)
10. Paul - 3%       (+2)

Bobby Jindal actually looked like he was making headway in Iowa, but one has to wonder if his inability to stand out at the kids-table debate has sunk his campaign. Maybe it's too easy to declare campaigns "sunk," but I don't see Jindal going anywhere.

"47 Traitors"? Give Me A Break

When 47 Senators sent a letter to Iran to remind them that they wouldn't have to honor any agreement that Pres. Obama signed off on until they had their own chance to review it and vote on it, the hashtag #47Traitors was born. It's another one of those cynical, divisive, gigantically hypocritical bumper-stick hate slogans that sticks in people's heads no matter how little substance there is. Look at how #WarOnWomen has stuck around.

Did the letter undermine the president? It could have. It was stupid and ill-advised. But is anyone on the Left actually advocating for the senators' imprisonment and execution? Let me rephrase. Is anyone rational on the Left advocating for this? No.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good dose of outrage.

Lest we forget, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes provides some examples when the Democrats have undermined Republican presidents with foreign leaders:

* In 1979, Senator Robert Byrd traveled to the Soviet Union during the SALT II arms talks to “personally explain the requirements of our Constitution” to Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev. Byrd later wrote: “In Leningrad, I explained that I had come to the Soviet Union neither to praise nor condemn the treaty but to create a better understanding of the treaty in the Senate and to explain to the Soviets the Senate’s constitutional role in treatymaking.”  

* In the early 1980s, Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached leaders of the Soviet Union with a proposal: I’ll help you with Ronald Reagan’s defense build up if you help me defeat him in the 1984 presidential election. Former senator John Tunney conveyed the offer on Kennedy’s behalf. 

* In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Nicaraguan strongman Daniel Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”

* In 1990, former President Jimmy Carter secretly wrote to the leaders of the U.N. Security Council nations urging them to oppose a resolution offered by his own country. The existence of the letter was revealed when one of its recipients shared a copy with the White House. Presi-dent George H. W. Bush was “furious” at the “deliberate attempt to undermine” his foreign policy, according to his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. 

* In 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue. 

* In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops. Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.

Back in the real world, in the political cycle, this stuff doesn't matter. Why? Cuz we got #47Traitors trending, man! Woohoo. Champagne for everyone at MSNBC and Media Matters. Just another way to use the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate against them. If this is our threshold for calling "treason," then all of our leaders have been traitors for a long time. And hey, Republicans did it to Bill Clinton too. As the Washington Post puts it:

The folly here is not in Cotton’s decision to write the mullahs, but in Obama’s petulant response that Cotton and his colleagues were “making common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.” Please. The deal Obama is negotiating is opposed not only by Republicans in Congress, but also by leading Democrats, the government of Israel and most Arab leaders. Are they all “making common cause with the hard-liners in Iran” too? 

Rather than having a temper tantrum, Obama should emulate Clinton and use congressional and international opposition as leverage at the negotiating table to get a better deal with Iran. And rather than rail against those who are speaking out against his deal, Obama should ask himself why so many are going to such great lengths to stop it. The problem is not their criticism, but Obama running roughshod over the concerns of Congress and U.S. allies. The fact is that any deal Obama reaches that does not have broad bipartisan backing in Congress and the support of governments in the region is in fact “dead on arrival” — even if Cotton and company are too polite to put it that bluntly.

And to be fair, if any of the 47 called "treason" on one or more of those actions before this letter, they shouldn't be surprised. Soemthing something "chickens home to roost" something.

In other news:

- Hillary Clinton's press conference on her secret email server was a disaster. It's the same old Clinton, where obfuscation and technicalities should satiate everyone. Does anyone really want her to be President, or is it just a matter of Democrats resigned to the fact she'll win the nomination, and she's better than any Republican? Is that what it is? Even the White House doesn't know how to defend her on this.

- Gov. Martin O'Malley took a baby step forward in perhaps declaring his own run for the Presidency, willing to go on the record with a gentle disagreement on how Hillary's handled the email controversy.